I saw this on CSPAN this morning and thought it was pretty interesting. He argues the Seven Days battles were the real turning point of the war. I have never heard of the Seven Days as being mentioned as a turning point before and thought I would share it with you all.

Many thanks for that link. I watched Gallagher's entire hour-long presentation and found it fascinating. He has some persuasive arguments for his statement. I understand from what he says that the Seven Days was a significant foundation for what followed and also was the start of Lincoln's plan to emancipate slaves, even before the idea gained traction after Antietam.

I would like to see Gallagher argue his points with a historians who fiercely believe Gettysburg was the true "turning point." That would be a super cool event to witness.

Gallagher does admit that the war had several distinct turning points, such as the fall of Atlanta, for example, but still maintains that the results for both North and South of the Seven Days Battles were so significant that it amounts to the true turning point of the war.

You are welcome Cleburne. He is definitely persuasive in his arguments for the Seven Days being a turning point of the war. It would be interesting to see him go up against the Gettyburg-ists.

What he said about Lee was very interesting. How the south didn't think much of him for the first year of the war. It wasn't until Chancellorsville that the Lee of today was embraced by the south.

I thought the what if question about if Grant had been in charge of the Penninsula Campaign was interesting also. The Grant of June 1862 was still coming into his own. I also wondered why McClellen gave up Malvern Hill after inflicting heavy casualties on the Lee's army. Like Gallagher said....McClellen was always looking for the retreat option. Lee and Grant never spoke of it as an option. Lee only retreated as a last resort.

Gallagher also talked a lot about how after New Orleans fell Vicksburg was irrelevant. The south lost any use for the Mississippi when New Orleans fell....which is true. From the Union perspective though....I think Vicksburg still kept the Union from full use of the river. So they had to take it.

Mark wrote: Can you be more specific Old Blu? He makes a pretty good case here.

Mark

His attitude that he is perfect and always right, which he isn't. Added some name calling within 10 minutes of the talk, and right off the bat during the TV program about Grant and Lee he called Lee a murderer.

No double about his abilities but his overall presentation sucks and I don't believe a word he says.

He was talking about how Grant was labeled a butcher by people in the north due to his high casualties. Lee meanwhile sustained heavier casualties but the south accepted it because he gave them victories in fending off the Yankee invaders. Lee and Grant both believed in the offensive meaning there was going to be high casualties. Calling Lee a murderer was said to point out that Grant wasnt a butcher.

Gotta confess, I really didn't realize until I heard Gallagher say it last night, that Grant's armies suffered "only" 35,000 casualties throughout the entire war, but in contrast Lee's Army of Northern Virginia suffered 95,000 casualties in the three years he led the ANV. I had no idea the difference was so stark. If anything, I would have thought the casualty toll would have been the reverse.

What's more, Lee could ill afford to lose that many men. Gallagher says a soldier who started with Lee in 1862 had a staggering 75% probabilty of becoming a casualty by the end of the war!

I didn't know matters were so dangerous under Lee, but, yes, he did win battles. However, no wonder his army was in such dire staits by April 1865.

BHR62 wrote: He was talking about how Grant was labeled a butcher by people in the north due to his high casualties. Lee meanwhile sustained heavier casualties but the south accepted it because he gave them victories in fending off the Yankee invaders. Lee and Grant both believed in the offensive meaning there was going to be high casualties. Calling Lee a murderer was said to point out that Grant wasnt a butcher.
No, that is not it. Right at the beginning of the movie that is what he called General Lee! A murderer. I didn't watch anymore of it.

All the writers I have read about called Grant a butcher but that doesn't matter to Galager.
He shows his biases real slick like. Matter of fact, I understand Grant himself said he regretted what he did at Cold Harbor.

I believe that the quote from General Grant's memoirs is: "I have always regretted the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made."

One person on the Union side who called General Grant a butcher at the time was Mary Lincoln. She complained to her husband that Grant was: "A butcher," and that he was: "Unfit to command an army," and that he would: "Depopulate the north." I don't know if Mr. Lincoln made a reply to his wife on the matter, but my guess is that he was thinking again what he had said to General Grant's detractors years before, which was: "I can't spare the man. He fights."

Grant wasn't anymore a butcher than Lee was. It was just the nature of that war. There was no way to wage it without heavy casualties. To label Grant a butcher while letting Lee off the hook isn't right.

BHR62 wrote: Grant wasn't anymore a butcher than Lee was. It was just the nature of that war. There was no way to wage it without heavy casualties. To label Grant a butcher while letting Lee off the hook isn't right.

Grant's critics in the North and just about everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line in 1862 thought of him as a butcher. Yet Lee who's army suffered heavier casualties throughout the war is a Saint to the south and some in the north. Some historians accuse Grant of being a butcher while glorifying Lee in godlike status. Just nice to see one point out that if Grant was a butcher/murderer then so was Lee.

Just my two cents. Both Grant and Lee were military men leading soldiers in a war. At that time in history, the way war was fought with the technology of the times, casualties were extremely heavy and expected to be. In contrast, Joseph E Johnston who sought to avoid heavy casualties by retreating was demonized for hs philosophy of warfare.

The real butchers of history were the ones who, in addition to the massive losses of their own military and their enemies, were the ones who also ruthlessly slaughtered thousands upon thousands of civilians including women and children.

Neither Grant nor Lee ever came anywhere near such levels of atrocities as were perpetrated in ancient times or even as recently as World War Two or even under the Pol Pot regime on Cambodia.

CleburneFan wrote: Gotta confess, I really didn't realize until I heard Gallagher say it last night, that Grant's armies suffered "only" 35,000 casualties throughout the entire war, but in contrast Lee's Army of Northern Virginia suffered 95,000 casualties in the three years he led the ANV.
How does Gallagher figure Grant had "only" 35,000 casualties throughout the entire war?

At the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and North Anna (only three battles) alone he had 56,150 casualties.

I am not arguing that Grant was a butcher. I think Grant and Lee were both good Generals. But for Gary Gallagher to say this is absurd.

As you know not every one gives the exact casualty numbers. But even with Victor, Bonekember, Eicher, Foote and Rhea you come up with Union casualty numbers for the Union in those three battles at around 38,000.

I have found that Hellcat is an excellent source at casualty figures, maybe he will see this post and work his magic.

My bad, just figured out what I done. If you will look at the link I posted and add Cold Harbor and Petersburg to the Wilderness and Spotsylvania you will come up with the number 56,150. My apologies, the number should have been 38,623 for the three battles named above. Was a long day at work.